Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?
By K. Thorlund, P. Devereaux, J. Wetterslev, G. Guyatt, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, L. Gluud, B. Als-Nielsen, C. Gluud. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2009
758 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6295b62b52dae4bab5787090324a579cb7d230cd
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. (2008, methodology): “Retrospective analyses indicate that by reducing the risk of false positive results, TSA may delay implementation of interventions with 4 years [ 33 ].”
- Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods (2014, background): “We agree with such risks, but all things considered we do argue that a conservative scenario is more ethically defensible compared to the present-day practice of implementing interventions based on weak evidence [9,25,44,45,52,79].”
- Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials.”